Passenger pontification and pilot safety
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by exvicar
Without soliciting another complete diatribe from the passenger, just wondering how you would feel if you had been a passenger on the longest ETOPS diversion. I believe it was 3 hours 6 minutes on one engine across the Pacific.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: everywhere
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nah, nah, would y’all please not respond in this heated manner to this agent provocateur? Who knows what kind of organization is behind him/her, or who else might be reading this thread and use it against aviation, now or later.
Not responding is not the right thing to do either, but when we respond, please just do it in the coolest possible manner (and references to IQ look/feel/sound, and are inappropriate) . He is only waiting for us to start fuming and then will continue to stoke the fire.
Some people just are afraid of flying. Period. To pilots, this is a fear we cannot bring ourselves to comprehend, but it is widespread in the public, in various degrees of severity. Of course, people like “the passenger” are not helping any with their irrational panicky ways of putting things, but that irrationality is a factor that we in the aviation industry have to cope with, no matter what.
Unfortunately, “we are professionals and we know what we are doing; and now let us do our job” (although true and the only way to do this and any business for that matter) is not helping those uncomfortable with flying. We have to take the those pax that are uncomfortable serious and make the best effort to put them at ease (which has nothing to do with sugarcoating/hiding facts), then go fly.
So please, as much as “the passenger” and others here get on your nerves, just keep a cool head and act/write accordingly. After all, that is what you do in the cockpit as well when the proverbial starts to hit the fan.
Dear “the passenger” (and this is a little bit off the original thread, but intended to broaden your horizon a bit): It is funny medical procedures came up on this thread. Let us compare the two fields of occupation for a bit.
Of course, dear “the passenger”, you also are a little bit irritated that I “diagnosed” your behavior as an irrational fear. But do a search on the number of “deaths by airline”, in the US and Europe (we know too that Africa is not the safest place to fly). Shockingly low, isn’t it? 80’000 deaths p/y in hospitals in the US alone, figures for Europe are not even available (maybe you can find them and give us the numbers). Yet a lot of people fear to go flying -- if that is not irrational, then what?
BTW, why don’t you please tell us whether you are affiliated with a news outlet/law firm/think tank/etc. Thanks. Another BTW: BA really is the most experienced and sophisticated operator of the B 742/3/4.
Not responding is not the right thing to do either, but when we respond, please just do it in the coolest possible manner (and references to IQ look/feel/sound, and are inappropriate) . He is only waiting for us to start fuming and then will continue to stoke the fire.
Some people just are afraid of flying. Period. To pilots, this is a fear we cannot bring ourselves to comprehend, but it is widespread in the public, in various degrees of severity. Of course, people like “the passenger” are not helping any with their irrational panicky ways of putting things, but that irrationality is a factor that we in the aviation industry have to cope with, no matter what.
Unfortunately, “we are professionals and we know what we are doing; and now let us do our job” (although true and the only way to do this and any business for that matter) is not helping those uncomfortable with flying. We have to take the those pax that are uncomfortable serious and make the best effort to put them at ease (which has nothing to do with sugarcoating/hiding facts), then go fly.
So please, as much as “the passenger” and others here get on your nerves, just keep a cool head and act/write accordingly. After all, that is what you do in the cockpit as well when the proverbial starts to hit the fan.
Dear “the passenger” (and this is a little bit off the original thread, but intended to broaden your horizon a bit): It is funny medical procedures came up on this thread. Let us compare the two fields of occupation for a bit.
Of course, dear “the passenger”, you also are a little bit irritated that I “diagnosed” your behavior as an irrational fear. But do a search on the number of “deaths by airline”, in the US and Europe (we know too that Africa is not the safest place to fly). Shockingly low, isn’t it? 80’000 deaths p/y in hospitals in the US alone, figures for Europe are not even available (maybe you can find them and give us the numbers). Yet a lot of people fear to go flying -- if that is not irrational, then what?
BTW, why don’t you please tell us whether you are affiliated with a news outlet/law firm/think tank/etc. Thanks. Another BTW: BA really is the most experienced and sophisticated operator of the B 742/3/4.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well, I'll bite just once more.
You're right, you don't. OTOH statistics are what they are, just numbers, and their meaning is completely different depending on who is viewing.
You can't question a 'profi' the way he's doing things; thats what they're trained to death for. Likewise you can't question a heart surgeon about the way he does his operations.
If you cannot understand this things your job must be really really really boring and does not involve any type of risk taking... sorry
GD&L
Since when do you have to fly 747s to make statistical comparisons?
You can't question a 'profi' the way he's doing things; thats what they're trained to death for. Likewise you can't question a heart surgeon about the way he does his operations.
If you cannot understand this things your job must be really really really boring and does not involve any type of risk taking... sorry
GD&L
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My observations for what it's worth as a 20 year "veteran" of the Boeing 747(all types) are as follows:-
The aircraft and crew were JAA licensed and BA operate within the USA as FAR compliant.
Given the same circumstances, I would also have continued to destination, unless my crew (inc. cabin crew) and passengers expressed serious concerns, having observed the effects of the engine surge. Indeed, I have on 2 occasions cotinued the flight in similar circumstances - legally and safely.
My criticism of the crew would be this:- they were either naive or inexperienced on this particular routing, to assume that they would achieve every optimum altitude for maximum fuel-efficiency as the flight would cross the Atlantic on a random track against the NA track system at that time of day, when a lower than desired flight level is more often than not,only available;-
and, their knowledge and management of the fuel system was deficient.
Other than that, the flight was completed safely, albeit to an alternate and I think that The Boeing Aircraft Co. may be seeking urgent clarification from the FAA regarding their new 4-engined B747-8 and it's operation following an in-flight engine shutdown. If the non-normal QRH is to have "land at nearest suitable airfield) added following completion of the engine shutdown checklist then Boeing and Airbus may as well abandon their 4-engine production lines!
P.s. one doesn't "loose" an engine, one "loses" an engine.
As for 2-engine go-arounds, it has been possible since the early days of the 747-100, just more exciting then!
The aircraft and crew were JAA licensed and BA operate within the USA as FAR compliant.
Given the same circumstances, I would also have continued to destination, unless my crew (inc. cabin crew) and passengers expressed serious concerns, having observed the effects of the engine surge. Indeed, I have on 2 occasions cotinued the flight in similar circumstances - legally and safely.
My criticism of the crew would be this:- they were either naive or inexperienced on this particular routing, to assume that they would achieve every optimum altitude for maximum fuel-efficiency as the flight would cross the Atlantic on a random track against the NA track system at that time of day, when a lower than desired flight level is more often than not,only available;-
and, their knowledge and management of the fuel system was deficient.
Other than that, the flight was completed safely, albeit to an alternate and I think that The Boeing Aircraft Co. may be seeking urgent clarification from the FAA regarding their new 4-engined B747-8 and it's operation following an in-flight engine shutdown. If the non-normal QRH is to have "land at nearest suitable airfield) added following completion of the engine shutdown checklist then Boeing and Airbus may as well abandon their 4-engine production lines!
P.s. one doesn't "loose" an engine, one "loses" an engine.
As for 2-engine go-arounds, it has been possible since the early days of the 747-100, just more exciting then!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Of course, dear “the passenger”, you also are a little bit irritated that I “diagnosed” your behavior as an irrational fear. But do a search on the number of “deaths by airline”, in the US and Europe (we know too that Africa is not the safest place to fly). Shockingly low, isn’t it? 80’000 deaths p/y in hospitals in the US alone, figures for Europe are not even available (maybe you can find them and give us the numbers). Yet a lot of people fear to go flying -- if that is not irrational, then what?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by GearDown&Locked
well, I'll bite just once more.
You can't question a 'profi' the way he's doing things; thats what they're trained to death for. Likewise you can't question a heart surgeon about the way he does his operations.
GD&L
You can't question a 'profi' the way he's doing things; thats what they're trained to death for. Likewise you can't question a heart surgeon about the way he does his operations.
GD&L
I think it is prudent to even question the way a surgeon does an operation (there are almost always different techniques to do a certain operation).
"Profis" almost killed several people a few weeks ago by "testing" a new medicine on them in England...so it is always good to be SCEPTICAL...and it is always good to question a 'profi' (even if he does not like this - which I can understand from his point of view
).
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Close to Wales
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What, hundreds of deaths related to aviation this year! Best I resign from my job & spend the rest of my life hiding under my bed. Of course just incase there is an earthquake, not that there ever has been where I live, I may well be better hiding under my desk.
Hundreds is obviously significant if you are one of those involved. However, statistically, given the number that fly every year, flying is by far the safest form of travel known to man. Maybe you should give up commuting in your car & fly to work. Did you know there were over 100,000 deaths on the roads in China over the last twelve months? Living incurs risk, get on with it!
Can't wait to read your scaremongering newspaper article.
Hundreds is obviously significant if you are one of those involved. However, statistically, given the number that fly every year, flying is by far the safest form of travel known to man. Maybe you should give up commuting in your car & fly to work. Did you know there were over 100,000 deaths on the roads in China over the last twelve months? Living incurs risk, get on with it!
Can't wait to read your scaremongering newspaper article.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: LPPT
Age: 58
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if I remember correctly, it was the FAA that questioned the way this flight was done...
Drive safe.
GD&L
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by GearDown&Locked
have you ever questioned the guys at Mercedes or BMW for not having airbags for the back passengers in every model they make? they too are people like the one's in front you know? or why they only fit the top class cars with the latest safety systems available? I believe the auto industry is far more obscure than air transport.
Drive safe.
GD&L
Drive safe.
GD&L
In the end your argumentation means "shut up, don´ t ask any questions, let the "experts" do what THEY think is right to do! Maybe you know this "wise joke" by Peter Ustinov: "The last words you will hear when the earth explodes in a big fiery ball will be the voice of an expert, saying "this is technically impossible"...
But - between us - I will tell you that I think you are right: there are other fields which are far more obscure than airtransport.
Guest
Posts: n/a
the passenger
I am a passenger too and I have a license to fly a small aeroplane (not a 747.)
I have this irrational sense that flying is very safe and that British Airways are particularly safe.
So there you go
And Prof Ladkin's paper was very clever and amusing, but I still feel irrationally safe flying with British Airways, as they have not killed me yet in several hundred flights.
By the way, CG Jung defined "irrational" as the process of making sense of the world by non concrete experiences and the unconcious mind is good at doing that kind of stuff.
So maybe your whole line of argument is paradoxical and therefore unresolvable on this forum?
The more the professional pilots provide evidence, the more your brain will give you reasons why it cannot be so.
Happy flying.
I am a passenger too and I have a license to fly a small aeroplane (not a 747.)
I have this irrational sense that flying is very safe and that British Airways are particularly safe.
So there you go
And Prof Ladkin's paper was very clever and amusing, but I still feel irrationally safe flying with British Airways, as they have not killed me yet in several hundred flights.
By the way, CG Jung defined "irrational" as the process of making sense of the world by non concrete experiences and the unconcious mind is good at doing that kind of stuff.
So maybe your whole line of argument is paradoxical and therefore unresolvable on this forum?
The more the professional pilots provide evidence, the more your brain will give you reasons why it cannot be so.
Happy flying.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Passenger'
Please could you expand on your logic here?
And please could you expand on what you understand by "declare an emergency"? Do you know/understand the ICAO definitions of "Pan" and "Mayday"?
Finally, what decision, and at what point, do you think the crew should have made?
TIA
NoD
If this BA flight had to declare an emergency, this alone proves that safety was compromised by continuing the flight
And please could you expand on what you understand by "declare an emergency"? Do you know/understand the ICAO definitions of "Pan" and "Mayday"?
Finally, what decision, and at what point, do you think the crew should have made?
TIA
NoD
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hallo The Passenger,
Your understanding of the cause of the KLM-PAA accident in Tenerife in 1977 is at best incomplete and at worst faulty. Unfortunately, it is widely believed (viz. DozyWannabe's reply) that the KLM skipper (who was PF) knowingly started his takeoff run without TO clearance, allegedly because he was anxious to complete the flight before expiration of his duty time. This [I]may[I] be so but is far from proven. As they were taxying to the TO point, the KLM FO pointed out to the captain that they had not yet received TO clearance. The captain agreed and asked the FO to obtain it from the tower. The tower issued a route clearance, which began "You are cleared..." and was received by the KLM crew as they reached the runway threshold. The controller ended his clearance with the words "Stand by for takeoff" as he knew that the PAA 747 was still on the active runway, in fog and not visible to the KLM crew. Tragically, this last instruction was transmitted at the same time as a transmission from the PAA to the controller on the same frequency. The coincident transmissions came out in the KLM flight deck as a squeal. The KLM captain began his takeoff roll, apparently believing he had received TO clearance (very likely his belief was furthered by time constraints to complete the flight). Early in the TO roll, after hearing a further transmission between tower and PAA, the KLM flight engineer queried the Captain: "Is he not clear then, that PanAm?". The captain emphatically replied in the affirmative: "YES, he is clear". It is not known if the FO made any comment. It seems clear that the captain, who, as you know, was an experienced training captain at KLM, had no doubts he had TO clearance.
Of course, the possibility remains that the KLM captain did deliberately attempt takeoff without clearance but, from all the evidence, this seems most unlikely.
Unquestionably, it was pilot error but, as usual, not ascribable to a single cause or mistake (certainly not to "Spanish factors"). Once again, enough holes in the Swiss cheese lined up.
Rockhound
Your understanding of the cause of the KLM-PAA accident in Tenerife in 1977 is at best incomplete and at worst faulty. Unfortunately, it is widely believed (viz. DozyWannabe's reply) that the KLM skipper (who was PF) knowingly started his takeoff run without TO clearance, allegedly because he was anxious to complete the flight before expiration of his duty time. This [I]may[I] be so but is far from proven. As they were taxying to the TO point, the KLM FO pointed out to the captain that they had not yet received TO clearance. The captain agreed and asked the FO to obtain it from the tower. The tower issued a route clearance, which began "You are cleared..." and was received by the KLM crew as they reached the runway threshold. The controller ended his clearance with the words "Stand by for takeoff" as he knew that the PAA 747 was still on the active runway, in fog and not visible to the KLM crew. Tragically, this last instruction was transmitted at the same time as a transmission from the PAA to the controller on the same frequency. The coincident transmissions came out in the KLM flight deck as a squeal. The KLM captain began his takeoff roll, apparently believing he had received TO clearance (very likely his belief was furthered by time constraints to complete the flight). Early in the TO roll, after hearing a further transmission between tower and PAA, the KLM flight engineer queried the Captain: "Is he not clear then, that PanAm?". The captain emphatically replied in the affirmative: "YES, he is clear". It is not known if the FO made any comment. It seems clear that the captain, who, as you know, was an experienced training captain at KLM, had no doubts he had TO clearance.
Of course, the possibility remains that the KLM captain did deliberately attempt takeoff without clearance but, from all the evidence, this seems most unlikely.
Unquestionably, it was pilot error but, as usual, not ascribable to a single cause or mistake (certainly not to "Spanish factors"). Once again, enough holes in the Swiss cheese lined up.
Rockhound
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passenger:
It should be clear to you now that the professionals on this board do not agree with your "Sun", "Bild", " and other similar lowlife scandal mongerers.
You have been made welcome on an aviation BB for professionals. You may read, contribute, discuss. All for free. What you are doing is, as a non professional, tell the professionals how to do their job. Annoys the professionals that does.
A little advice: You are out of your depth here, so give it a rest, you are making a fool out of yourself. (Much to the amusement/annoyance of others reading your considered opinions).
It should be clear to you now that the professionals on this board do not agree with your "Sun", "Bild", " and other similar lowlife scandal mongerers.
You have been made welcome on an aviation BB for professionals. You may read, contribute, discuss. All for free. What you are doing is, as a non professional, tell the professionals how to do their job. Annoys the professionals that does.
A little advice: You are out of your depth here, so give it a rest, you are making a fool out of yourself. (Much to the amusement/annoyance of others reading your considered opinions).
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passenger
I'm a current airline Captain and I understand and agree with much of what you are saying. It appears that there are many more bold pilots around these days than maybe in the past.
Let's hope the old saying ' Better lucky than good.' holds true.
I'm a current airline Captain and I understand and agree with much of what you are saying. It appears that there are many more bold pilots around these days than maybe in the past.
Let's hope the old saying ' Better lucky than good.' holds true.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear The Passenger,
As an airline pilot, I personally appreciate that you value yours and others safety as a priority when flying. This is a very good thing, and nomatter what other contributers have said, most of which is valid and true I must add, I value that.
However, it does seems to me that you don't know the meaning, the DEFINITION, of "safety".
Let me give the definition for you, which one learns on he first day of any Msc in Safety.
"Safety is a CONDITION of a relative absence of danger".
In my professional view as a Safety expert (in former life as Maritime officer) and current Boeing pilot, The condition was not compromised as there were still enough redundant systems. The condition was still so that there was no high chance of risk. So, in the beginning of the flight, and for most of the flight it seems, there was an absence of danger. The danger only came when fuel levels became too low for a safe landing at the planned airport.
Hence, the condition changed, as the relative absence of a danger changed into a relative RISK that a dangerous situation could occur should the pilots continue to the planned destination.
It should be clear from the earlier definition, that complete safety is an utopia.
It is not even wishful, as it is not human.
Risk management is a vital role in the safe operation of any flight.
This is what we are trained for. This is what the guys on that BA B744 did.
Despegue
As an airline pilot, I personally appreciate that you value yours and others safety as a priority when flying. This is a very good thing, and nomatter what other contributers have said, most of which is valid and true I must add, I value that.
However, it does seems to me that you don't know the meaning, the DEFINITION, of "safety".
Let me give the definition for you, which one learns on he first day of any Msc in Safety.
"Safety is a CONDITION of a relative absence of danger".
In my professional view as a Safety expert (in former life as Maritime officer) and current Boeing pilot, The condition was not compromised as there were still enough redundant systems. The condition was still so that there was no high chance of risk. So, in the beginning of the flight, and for most of the flight it seems, there was an absence of danger. The danger only came when fuel levels became too low for a safe landing at the planned airport.
Hence, the condition changed, as the relative absence of a danger changed into a relative RISK that a dangerous situation could occur should the pilots continue to the planned destination.
It should be clear from the earlier definition, that complete safety is an utopia.
It is not even wishful, as it is not human.
Risk management is a vital role in the safe operation of any flight.
This is what we are trained for. This is what the guys on that BA B744 did.
Despegue
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Nom De Guerre
Passenger:
It should be clear to you now that the professionals on this board do not agree with your "Sun", "Bild", " and other similar lowlife scandal mongerers.
You have been made welcome on an aviation BB for professionals. You may read, contribute, discuss. All for free. What you are doing is, as a non professional, tell the professionals how to do their job. Annoys the professionals that does.
A little advice: You are out of your depth here, so give it a rest, you are making a fool out of yourself. (Much to the amusement/annoyance of others reading your considered opinions).
It should be clear to you now that the professionals on this board do not agree with your "Sun", "Bild", " and other similar lowlife scandal mongerers.
You have been made welcome on an aviation BB for professionals. You may read, contribute, discuss. All for free. What you are doing is, as a non professional, tell the professionals how to do their job. Annoys the professionals that does.
A little advice: You are out of your depth here, so give it a rest, you are making a fool out of yourself. (Much to the amusement/annoyance of others reading your considered opinions).
- I´m not an expert. Never claimed to be one.
- I don´t care about "Sun", "Bild" or other scandal mongerers.
- I don´ t tell professionals how to do their job. I only said that if they do it in a certain way - a way I do not like - I will not buy the "product". I will not buy the bread of a professional baker either, if I don´t like its taste. You seem to forget that your job is to fly me (and others) from A to B. If I do not like your (your airline´s) work, I will not fly with you.
- if that´ s "making a fool of myself" , I can live with that.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Final 3 Greens
the passenger
I am a passenger too and I have a license to fly a small aeroplane (not a 747.)
I have this irrational sense that flying is very safe and that British Airways are particularly safe.
So there you go
And Prof Ladkin's paper was very clever and amusing, but I still feel irrationally safe flying with British Airways, as they have not killed me yet in several hundred flights.
By the way, CG Jung defined "irrational" as the process of making sense of the world by non concrete experiences and the unconcious mind is good at doing that kind of stuff.
So maybe your whole line of argument is paradoxical and therefore unresolvable on this forum?
The more the professional pilots provide evidence, the more your brain will give you reasons why it cannot be so.
Happy flying.
I am a passenger too and I have a license to fly a small aeroplane (not a 747.)
I have this irrational sense that flying is very safe and that British Airways are particularly safe.
So there you go
And Prof Ladkin's paper was very clever and amusing, but I still feel irrationally safe flying with British Airways, as they have not killed me yet in several hundred flights.
By the way, CG Jung defined "irrational" as the process of making sense of the world by non concrete experiences and the unconcious mind is good at doing that kind of stuff.
So maybe your whole line of argument is paradoxical and therefore unresolvable on this forum?
The more the professional pilots provide evidence, the more your brain will give you reasons why it cannot be so.
Happy flying.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Rockhound
Hallo The Passenger,
The KLM captain began his takeoff roll, apparently believing he had received TO clearance (very likely his belief was furthered by time constraints to complete the flight).
It seems clear that the captain, who, as you know, was an experienced training captain at KLM, had no doubts he had TO clearance.
The KLM captain began his takeoff roll, apparently believing he had received TO clearance (very likely his belief was furthered by time constraints to complete the flight).
It seems clear that the captain, who, as you know, was an experienced training captain at KLM, had no doubts he had TO clearance.
Of course, the possibility remains that the KLM captain did deliberately attempt takeoff without clearance but, from all the evidence, this seems most unlikely.
Unquestionably, it was pilot error but, as usual, not ascribable to a single cause or mistake (certainly not to "Spanish factors"). Once again, enough holes in the Swiss cheese lined up.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Stan Woolley
Passenger
I'm a current airline Captain and I understand and agree with much of what you are saying. It appears that there are many more bold pilots around these days than maybe in the past.
Let's hope the old saying ' Better lucky than good.' holds true.
I'm a current airline Captain and I understand and agree with much of what you are saying. It appears that there are many more bold pilots around these days than maybe in the past.
Let's hope the old saying ' Better lucky than good.' holds true.
Isn´ t there a saying "There are old pilots and bold pilots. But no old AND bold pilots" ?
Flying such a long route over water with 3 instead of 4 engines may have been according to (European) authorities and may have been quite safe (though not as safe as on 4 engines) but as a passenger I would not like to cross an ocean in such a plane.